An Opposition in name only?

Last weekend, the Broadbent Institute held a summit here in Ottawa. The New Democrats and their friends took part to discuss big ideas about taxes, the environment and democracy. They also lamented how much democracy has weakened under Stephen Harper’s government — something patently obvious to all but the most devoted Kool-Aid drinker in the Conservative base.

They did a good job of putting their finger on the problem. They didn’t do quite so well when it came to admitting that they’re part of the problem.

Governments, good or bad, require strong, principled opposition parties which push back when they think the government is going down the wrong road. The NDP can always be counted on to tear into the Harper government’s crime agenda as an ineffective waste of public funds — but when it comes down to legislation, all too often it ends up toeing the government’s line.

Case in point: Bill C-26, the ‘Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act’. The Commons Justice committee that studied the bill hardly broke a sweat before they sent the bill back to the House. Last Friday, the bill was debated in the Commons and will soon be headed to the Senate for anther round of … um … scrutiny.

Bill C-26 targets sex offenders by increasing mandatory minimums, ramping up maximum penalties and emphasizing consecutive sentences. It compels registered sex offenders to tell authorities if they travel abroad and permits information-sharing between the Canadian Border Services Agency and the National Sex Offender Registry. It also creates what it calls a “publicly accessible database of high-risk child sex offenders.”

In the House, NDP MP Francois Pilon said his party will support the legislation because of how important it is “to punish those who commit sexual abuse against children.” He then proceeded to dump on most of the bill. He noted the tough-on-crime measures the Tories have already brought in seem to be ineffective and suggested the bill, without proper resources, will be “pointless.” He went on to claim the NDP was disappointed the bill did not “… propose truly effective measures for protecting our children and tangible preventive measures to make our communities safer.”

Both the NDP and Liberals admit the bill will do nothing to protect children and will cost a lot of money. True, their opposition wouldn’t change anything; the Tories can pass any bill they like. But if opposition means nothing, why oppose anything?

NDP MP Murray Rankin also said his party supports the bill, despite the fact that it “… seems to ignore the evidence …” He went on to cite committee witnesses — including the experts who said mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime. He quoted former Crown attorney Paul Calarco, who said “it is far more likely now that there will be constitutional challenges, there will be a finding of gross disproportionality, and that means the entire sentencing regime must be struck down.”

“Does that sound like a good way to protect our children?” Mr. Rankin asked rhetorically. “If the experts and the evidence are saying that these kinds of measures, minimum mandatory sentences, simply will not work, if they are saying that we need more money to do the job, and if they are saying that the registries are not particularly effective, we need to address why in committee the Conservatives rejected the amendments that were proposed by the NDP to try to improve the bill.”

The Liberals aren’t much better. Liberal MP Sean Casey merely pointed out that Stats Canada reported a 6 per cent increase in sexual offences against children in 2013. He argued that “either Bill C-10” — the omnibus crime bill passed in 2012 — “was ineffective at reducing the number of offences … or the government is again increasing penalties without waiting to see whether Bill C-10 was effective.”

Both the NDP and Liberals seem to be admitting the bill will do nothing to protect children and will cost a lot of money. True, their opposition wouldn’t change anything; the Tories can pass any bill they like. But if opposition means nothing, why oppose anything? Why vote against extending the war in Iraq? Or against Bill C-51?

Both parties condemn the Tories for wasting money on longer prison sentences and call on the government to spend more to fund rehabilitative programs like CoSA, prison programs and services for abused children. What they don’t do is oppose what they seem to think is a bad bill. Only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has suggested she might vote against the bill. “As much as I want to do whatever it takes to protect children from child predators,” she said, “I do not see that this bill is going to be effective.”

Opposing a bill called Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act takes political courage. But courage is relative term. Real courage is a child telling someone that her daddy crawls into her bed at night even though she ‘loves’ him. Courage is a grown man walking into a victim services office and telling a complete stranger he was abused as a child. Courage is a man with a sexual preference for children asking for help before he hurts one child.

Standing up for those people in the House of Commons isn’t courage. It’s the right thing to do.

Steve Sullivan has been advocating for victims for almost 20 years, having served as the former president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and as the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime. He has testified before numerous parliamentary committees on victims’ rights, justice reform and public safety issues and has conducted training for provincial and federal victim services. He is currently the executive director of Ottawa Victim Services and a part-time professor at Algonquin College in the Victimology Graduate Certificate Program. His views are his own and do not represent any agency with which he is associated.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

8 comments on “An Opposition in name only?”

Really, quite frankly I could make all the same points on failings about all our media. How long have we been shut out entirely about all of these trade agreements which are more about deregulation through privatization. One central clause at the core of all these agreements ( including NAFTA), stated as the investor-state dispute settlement’ which by-passing all of our legislation and regulations to allow all corporations to sue (us) government/taxpayers for any and all costs from domestic changes in laws or regs of doing business.

I do hope there is a way to successfully challenge the constitutionality of such undertakings once these rogues are out of office. I predict a mass exodus from this country if they remain. Seems a lot of commenters are saying so now. Unthinkable 10 years ago.

I dont recall ever saying who My MP is; hope my id is not that obvious to the trolls out here.
And I truly hope you are right; leaving is a worst case end of the earth scenario. And yet the current pm still seems to be polling on top.

You’ve said I have my head turned on right and now worried I might be a troll?

I do not know you nor your MP’s name. Only that s/he voted on extending the mission your way.

Adding 2 and 2 together between that post and the one I replied to, to repeat I was simply saying with the pre-vote123 you could give him/her an even stronger spine. Please check the link which has no hidden aspects to it.

PS: You’re also the one who spoke of the skill of saying more with less words but here, not that we have to go there, much of what you wrote is puzzling and greek to me.

In addressing you, is your prefix an adjective or the subject of your adoration? :) Comment not obligatory!

In any regard it was you not I who misread the others as if you somehow had been compromised. What in mine prompted this? However for what its worth, unless you connect a few dots for this outside the box reader, as stated B4 I do not understand the remainder of your earlier post.

As to agreement to take back our democracy? Great! Please no disrespect here. Given this assent how should I read yours and know we are a step closer to the common objective?